TRAGEDY
I have always read “Macbeth” as one of the first modern tragedies – where the main protagonist takes a wrong decision with catastrophic consequences and engages our empathy (not necessarily because they are a “good person after all” but because we understand that something like this could have happened to us) – but this is NOT the only way to read it. It is likely that the play is somewhere on a scale between Greek (= fate-driven) and modern (= guilt-driven) tragedy, but where exactly is difficult to establish. (I have also developed a feeling that these assignations are a “crutch” – useful at times but not to be taken too seriously! It will come up again …) Theoretically, it could even be nowhere on that scale because the Macbeths could just as well be seen (and played!) as “medieval” villains, not as “tragic” protagonists. I consider this to be an unlikely reading because of the enormous height of the fall Shakespeare makes Macbeth take, but there is a possibility - and more than a little evidence! - that people have read and might still be reading it like this. “Tragedy” is not just a fact, it involves a DECISION every reader has to take. My infallible proof of the decision I took was that, in my inner “Macbeth”, “Heroes” by David Bowie is playing on the stereo when Lady Macbeth enters to speak with Macbeth before the fatal banquet (- and she switches it off.) I thought it such an obvious decision, but most of the productions I have seen either went against it or didn’t succeed in showing it. So, proof of tragedy is still outstanding …
DARKNESS
Apart from blood, the most important “matter” in the play is DARKNESS. Quod esset demonstrandum, but the proof would be a waste of blog space because of the omnipresence of references to night/darkness in the play. The really interesting fact is anyway that there is so much more of it in “Macbeth” than in any other of Shakespeare’s thirty-odd plays, and the proof of THAT would definitely go beyond ANY scope, so I have to rely on my recollection of the thirty-five plays I have actually read, so: Quod ERAT demonstrandum (= proved)
As the “weird sisters” are INSTRUMENTS OF DARKNESS – which Banquo suspects, but there is confirmation on a plot level because they are instrumental in Macbeth’s decision to commit murder – a relation between them and the darkness is clearly implied. (proved) They have therefore to be central to the play and cannot be marginalized (proved), which they usually are (proved on the basis of my knowledge; empirical proof on a larger scale would be desirable.) So, why do the weird sisters not “work” in the way they are supposed to? They might not merely because of my own expectations being wrong – though I think I’d go with anything except boring! - or it may have something to do with the contradictory semantical issues I have unfolded. It might also just be tradition that is to blame (= that there are things you can and cannot do with the weird sisters)? “We” certainly don’t want to see witches on the stage anymore, but what do “instruments of darkness” look like in the 21st century? (And WHAT is the darkness?)
(I am aware that this “proved” thing becomes annoying, but I need to do it to establish where I leave the firm ground of “provability”, which invariably happens.)
FATE
Fate is certainly a central issue of the play, for plot-reasons and as a general matter of importance in “Shakespeare”. (as proved) The designation of “weird(wyrd!) sisters” for his witches is additional proof. Accordingly, there is a strong logical link – via the weird sisters - between fate and darkness = The weird sisters being instruments of darkness should have something to do with them being in charge of fate.
Matters I have to look into further:
What exactly is the DARKNESS?
The exact “job description” for the sisters as “instruments of darkness”
EQUIVOCATION (and its relation with fate)
LADY MACBETH
THE MACBETHS and their fatal relationship
What’s wrong with MACBETH?
So, now I am back where I thought I had been already, and, even though there are unsolved issues on previous points, I’ll take up the question which has bothered me for years:
WHAT’S WRONG WITH MACBETH?
The link between tragedy and Macbeth as the main protagonist has already been established. If I want to read this play as a tragedy - which appears to be such an obvious choice – it should be represented in this way on the stage. All these great, coveted “tragic” roles like Lear, Hamlet and Othello seem to have a “limp” that is more or less difficult to overcome. Apart from Hamlet, Macbeth seems to be the worst. Compared to Hamlet or Lear, he is not even that “coveted”, or at least not equally indispensable to a theatre actor’s CV. Why might that be …?
I feel exhausted already, but the best thing to approach this issue would be to do what I have been doing on and off, though never systematically: to examine every single Macbeth I have seen on a stage or a screen and establish what was “wrong” with them. Basically: Why were they all BORING?
(To be precise, two of them were not: Christopher Eccleston in my most recent RSC “Macbeth” and James McAvoy in the “Shakespeare Retold”, but they stand out as the exceptions.)
The EARLIEST – and one of the first – productions of Macbeth I have seen is the old Polansky film from 1971 which might be a work of art in its own right but didn’t offer me any clues about the play or its protagonist. I don’t remember who played him, nor do I want to because the acting was grotesquely “off”, not only where the lead was concerned; but it doesn’t compare because it was a time where the absence of psychological depth in the acting might have been seen as “naturalism” and which I am quite glad to have “skipped”. I don’t even REMEMBER Lady Macbeth – and this also says a lot. It is quite revealing how seldom I can remember Macbeth and Lady Macbeth TOGETHER on a screen or stage, considering the long and substantial scenes between them in the first three acts of the play. As I stubbornly continue to understand the Macbeths as an item, the absence of the lady from my memories is never a good sign. So, as to a theory of WHO Macbeth is supposed to be, I draw a BLANK, apart from the fact that he seems to be a BRUTE without any regrets about what he has done, or any recognizable psychology, and I am rather sure he WENT MAD – which is often the reason it LOOKS like bad acting … (Great British actors won’t want to believe this, but their attempts at madness are – similar to their attempts at speaking American, or German for that matter! – INVARIABLY doomed to fail.)
This is probably quite unfair, but my MEMORIES of the Polanski film are rather close to those of the WORST “Macbeth” I’ve ever seen – and probably the first! - by an American University theatre group when I was still at uni in Munich, so: pre-1996. There is nothing at all to say about it apart from it containing a lot of wild hair and beards – like the Polanski film! – and appallingly bad acting, a lot of shouting, no Lady Macbeth that I remember and definitely MADNESS – a recurring theme very badly in need of being looked into … (I am not chuffed!)
Having remembered this, I’ll effortlessly jump to the “Macbeth” with Sean Bean – the second worst production I have seen (on a par with the Polanski version) but with ONE point of interest to it … I might ask myself why these frankly horrible experiences hadn’t put me off my favourite play early on – and why it BECAME my favourite play in the first place before I ever saw it on a stage. I think the first Shakespeare I actually saw - on the telly - was the Derek Jakoby “Hamlet” (with Patrick Stewart as Claudius who was the greater revelation at the time). I am not sure but think we read “Macbeth” at school, in German, and that might actually have been the reason, even though it was in German, so not really Shakespeare. As I wasn’t interested in the English language at the time because we had such bad teachers and never read anything interesting but was very much into stuff like Schiller, it might have been sufficient for me to get thrilled. That it REMAINED my favourite play of all times until the big “revival” post-2013 – though almost on a par with “Richard III” – is more strange. It might not even be such a bad thing that I don’t remember how “Shakespeare” began because it feels as if it had always been there - before I began - like the air I breathe …
As I am going about it more in the order of my experience than of when the respective version of the play had been produced, it is actually Sean Bean next. That was in 2004 or – most likely – the beginning of 2005, that is post-Lord of the Rings! I must have seen a decent German production not long before that or afterwards, at Nuremberg theatre, but I don’t remember much apart from a tall, dark, striking Macbeth – rather more like my inner Macbeth than any of the others! – and a stage that was very red. (If it was to symbolize the blood, it didn’t work because that only came to me right now … It certainly isn’t my idea of creating a bloody MESS!) So, the only thing I remember about the Nuremberg “Macbeth” is that it was mostly conventional but less offensive than the one with Sean Bean where bad acting and a severed head – something all the other theatre productions could do without - are basically the only things I remember. (Or didn’t the Ralph Fiennes version have a severed head? Appalling! - If it had, I forgot right away, but I’ll get to check because it will come to the “Cinema” next month, and I’ll definitely see it again because of Indira Varma.) In any case, it was very “literal” and unimaginative. One good thing – there WAS a lady; I remember flowing red hair and very energetic acting. (I should have enjoyed that more than I probably did because this would be the only adequate Lady Macbeth I would see in a long time …)
But there must have been at least SOME idea about who Macbeth is supposed to be. I read part of a review because I was looking for a date, and there Sean Bean was quoted in the sense that he played a SOLDIER – so, intentionally rather physical and BRUTAL, not “brainy” at all – and that was probably just what he did. It is on a par with the old BBC adaptation for television with an actor I don’t remember who did the same thing. Macbeth is just this athletic, virile, brutal guy – potentially a villain! – who kills to get to the throne and continues as remorseless and inhuman as he had always been … Taken literally, “The Tragedie of Macbeth” is NOT a tragedy but a slaughter. More than that: it seems to be the “default setting” for this character = what “happens” when nobody can be bothered to think about it further: a murderer who becomes a tyrant and – disputably! – gets mad in the end. It’s the part of Macbeth that remains if we chose not to give a shit about neither what people are saying about him in the beginning, nor what HE is saying, nor any of these fascinating human relationships so carefully displayed … and, above all, it’s such a BORING choice!
Anyway, this was the first of several great actors I have seen making a hash of Macbeth, therefore probably the most painful. In 2013 I revived my interest in the play in the wake of the “Hobbit hype” because Richard Armitage mentioned Macbeth as one of the models for his character. (In this sense, Thorin Oakenshield actually became the first convincing Macbeth I have seen, and my “inner Macbeth” – when I started to learn the play by heart – certainly had his voice in it …) Subsequently, I started to collect all the versions of “Macbeth” I could get on DVD – some of which were so horrible I won’t mention them, apart from a very Scottish “Macbeth” with Jason Connery – whom I had down as a terrible actor already since the (great) Robin Hood series … I think I decided there and then that Macbeth is NOT SCOTTISH. Of course he IS Scottish (– nothing against the Scots, on the contrary; Graham McTavish is the only actor I indelibly “casted” for my inner Macbeth, as Macduff -) and probably a BODYBUILDER. I am not joking! (Even Chris Eccleston – my best Macbeth on a stage so far - thought it relevant to show us that Macbeth kept fit and could do some fighting if he had to.) So, MUSCLES are definitely a requirement, and he SHOULDN’T BE OLD.
A muscled brute in military garb who can wield a sword convincingly (respectively use a machine gun), or a half-naked Scot with long hair and a wild beard – how could it get any worse? I was in for a surprise when I saw the film from 2010 with Patrick Stewart. He played Macbeth as a twentieth century USURPER and DICTATOR. That is, this was the concept of the film, so this was what he did – and it was BORING!!! As the film was based on Shakespeare’s text, the first three acts virtually got skipped, and of course there was “no” Lady Macbeth. Or, if there was, she didn’t have anything to do as everything was decided from the beginning. The worst thing was, though - which I encountered here for the first time: Macbeth – even though he looked fit to fight! – definitely was AN OLD MAN!
I was surprised that the film version of the RSC’s “Macbeth” with Antony Sher which I saw not much later – interestingly the only one that left any traces on the internet or in their shop between 2001 AND 2018! – was so much older than the Patrick Stewart film because, on the surface, it appears so much more sophisticated. (I still have a fondness for it, if only for the reason that it is the only trace Richard Armitage left as a member of the RSC. He played Angus, I believe, and had about two sentences to say and to stand with spread legs all the time so as not to look so much taller than the other soldiers …) But only on the surface; as a new adaptation of the play it is appallingly “empty”. Macbeth is an OLD MAN without illusions or energy or ambition - or wife to speak of (even though she was played by Harriet Walter!) The whole thing is so empty of any kind of interpretation or psychology that this emptiness itself became interesting - almost as if a spell was cast over the play for it to be put to sleep to be kissed awake at a more opportune time. I think it is from this moment that I was actively waiting and hoping for a hero to come and break the spell …
Of course I cannot continue to say nothing at all about Ralph Fiennes playing Macbeth, so I will say one sentence. If I am thinking about it, he played him much as Antony Sher did – so, even NOTHING can create a tradition of sorts!? – only that he got PROPERLY mad in the end. (At least I think this was the intention; as I said: it never works!)
I know there must be “method” behind the madness, but not even Michael Fassbender could convince me of it, probably because I am still stubbornly denying the necessity. I have no clue what the point is of Macbeth becoming mad – though I am probably not right. I shall have to deal with the madness, but frantically pacing the room like a caged wolf I see as an excuse for NOT dealing with it! There isn’t much more to say for or against the “Macbeth” film with him released in 2015, at least not in its capacity as an adaptation of the play. I don’t even think this was the intention, even though they used a cruelly reductive version of the Shakespeare text. If it was, it was clearly still under the “aesthetic” spell of 2001. Quite like the latest attempt at a film from 2021 with Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand that definitely hit the mark of “totally noncommittal”. Maybe certain texts get so emptied of meaning by endless repetition that the “timelessness setting” no longer works, and this was just happening to “Macbeth”? At least their Macbeth, like Michael Fassbender’s, was still middle-aged …
So, back to great OLD MEN playing Macbeth. Interestingly, in “The Hobbit” they made Thorin – the dwarf king with a beard so long that he has to tuck the ends through his belt so as not to tread on them - YOUNGER because they knew this whole story would only WORK if he isn’t already an old king without a crown trying to take it back but the HEIR to the throne who still has a lot to look forward to. In my opinion, it’s exactly the same for Macbeth. The tragedy of Macbeth is valid because he has this fatal decision – and this enormous fall – to take, but it is “bugged”, probably in more than one way. One of them is a “time-bug”.
The problem is that, on the stage, there is just NO WAY of showing convincingly how much time has passed. The downfall of Macbeth requires at least a few years - more likely many years - from his access to power until his death. At the end, Macbeth is at least on the brink of old age when he speaks about his “way of life” that “has fallen into the seer, the yellow leaf …” I don’t want to say that the play is bugged from the beginning because on an Elizabethan stage there wouldn’t have been a problem. The same way an “average” Elizabethan would have been perfectly fine with witches, they wouldn’t have been the least bit interested in these finer psychological points “we” find so fascinating in Shakespeare’s text. (This is something I am always trying to ignore whilst being well aware of it!) My idea for dealing with the problem is that Macbeth should be still middle-aged, and the “yellow-leaf” stuff at the end would come out slightly ironical and self-pitying, kind of like a “midlife crisis”.
By the way, I HAVE SEEN my perfect “Macbeth”! I have seen it – but it was not by Shakespeare. It must have been shortly after 2013 that I hit upon the “Shakespeare Retold” with James McAvoy. In this story, everything that never works on the stage works because the “time-bug” has been removed. The “ban” on tragedy is lifted. It is the perfect version of this story with Joe Macbeth as YOUNG and ambitious sous chef who is doing all the work and therefore thinks he should inherit from his lazy and conceited employer who is taking all the credit for the new Michelin star. He kills him, of course with the help of his attractive and ambitious wife – brilliantly played by Keeley Hawes – who is the one with the social and management skills but also a chink in her armour because of the loss of their child. (“My” Lady Macbeth until Indira Varma came along!) Banquo, his co-worker and best buddy, is killed by an illegal worker whom Macbeth blackmailed while biking with his son on the heath. It also has the best – and weirdest – “weird sisters”, the only ones I saw that really “worked” because of the great "binmen" idea I already mentioned. Perfect “Macbeth”! I realized only recently how much it has shaped my inner “Macbeth”. Actually, more than it should have!
It wasn’t even Macbeth, respectively James McAvoy - who is a genius, but so are/were Sean Bean, Antony Sher, Patrick Stewart, Michael Fassbender and Ralph Fiennes, all of whom I have seen doing incredible things as actors. James McAvoy as such wasn’t that much more interesting as Macbeth, he was just YOUNGER! The main thing was that, for the first time, I could detect an IDEA what this play might be about. I got convinced that Macbeth is about how far somebody would go to advance their career and the consequences of this choice. I still don’t think I am entirely wrong, but there are even bigger things at stake …
There was still one “Macbeth” to “sit through” before it gets REALLY interesting. 2018 was clearly a “Macbeth” year. Before we departed for Stratford we saw Rory Kinnear as Macbeth in the “Cinema”. I didn’t expect anything at all because he is one of the most boring actors I know - and got something more. There was actually one scene that was remarkable – psychology-wise – and this is not a mean feat where “Macbeth” is concerned! It was the scene after the murder of Duncan where he displayed the most genuine and devastating REMORSE I have seen on a stage. Therefore I will probably remember him fondly to the end of my days because I don’t suppose that anybody will ever again try and do the OBVIOUS!!! At least I had now proof that it’s not impossible to play WHAT SHAKESPEARE HAS WRITTEN …
And there was even a Lady Macbeth in this production: Anne-Marie Duff. She is exceptional, so there was ONE human being on the stage the moment she turned up. But I belief they casted her because she is so great at playing these damaged people – and a Lady Macbeth damaged from the beginning was not at all what I WANTED to see …
Then, in the summer of 2018, Claudia and I flew to Birmingham and travelled to Shakespeare’s hometown to meet Irmi - the third member of our “Macbeth Club” that only sits every other decade on special events – to see the RSC’s brand-new “Macbeth” with Christopher Eccleston. I pause just a moment to recall our sitting on a sunny bench opposite the swan-filled river and the theatre where we MIGHT have seen Chris Eccleston on a balcony. I was sceptical at the time but, in retrospect, I think we did … (one of the top moments of my life actually!), and then us meeting Irmi at the “Swan” … Even though my mates were not chuffed, the actual event I recall as a break-through of sorts.
A lot of what I described just now I have on DVD but I didn’t watch anything again because I had already dismissed it as unsatisfactory, respectively – for the “Shakespeare Retold” – remembered it really well. But it is a great thing that the RSC still produces DVDs, and of course I had “Macbeth”. It was a really good idea to watch it again as this made me aware what a break-through it actually had been. As I am writing this on Shakespeare’s birthday – after I drank a Limoncello Spritz to commemorate – I toast him vigorously as one of the few people who never cease to surprise me. The experience seemed “patchy” at the time – kind of incomplete - but now I can appreciate this production as an exceptional effort because - without knowing it! - I have come a long way. And - better still, though it didn’t feel so good at first! - in “one fell swoop” it eradicated some of my most persistent errors …
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen