Interlude: „My Macbeth“ - Instruments of darkness

Now to something completely different: I´ll give myself a break from all the heavy stuff and am working on my own production of “Macbeth” which has substantially evolved lately – that is, since London. And I have like a billion more ideas than I had for my first version, especially about the weird sisters which, in my ideal production, would not be somewhere on the side but kind of the pivotal part – the one we need to actually UNDERSTAND the play.

 

The essential idea to implement this was the one about them being INSTRUMENTS OF DARKNESS = essential agents in the spreading of evil. The idea is that this should be visible on the stage as much as possible. So, in my inner production of “Macbeth”, they wouldn’t be underprivileged - though subconsciously dreaded - parts of some marginalized social “minority”. And they should be seen to be actively plotting and planning. So, my newest idea is that they’d be real AGENTS – that is: spooks! This would entail that they could be on the stage ALL THE TIME without anybody noticing, taking on all kinds of different disguises, revealing themselves only to the people they “target”.

 

Every decision we take about how a certain element would show on the stage, though, entails that there are aspects we have to “ditch” which would also be nice to have or even essential. In my first imaginary production of “Macbeth” it seemed really important to me that the weird sisters actually be SISTERS, that is, visibly so. I wanted them to be triplets, or at least extremely similar in appearance. There was also the element of the androgynous in imagining them extremely thin, kind of emaciated. Both of these ideas got ditched, respectively modified, as my understanding of the sisters evolved. The reason behind the sisters really being sisters is, as I explained, their relation to the Greek Fates. That I ditched this idea had - apart from practical reasons, as to casting triplets! – its origin in the way my imagined production has evolved. In the beginning, I had kind of a “timeless” version in mind – with smartphones and swords, and mythical beings or spirits of nature roaming alongside people in combat uniforms and pinstripe suits. Now it has become decidedly contemporary. And even though I think that the idea of FATE should be born in mind, to “spell it out” on a 21st century stage wouldn’t be much use because few people would automatically associate triplets with Greek goddesses anyway. (I, with a master in literary criticism, did not!)

 

The second idea – about them being androgynous - stemmed from the part where Banquo and Macbeth are meeting the sisters on the heath and don’t know what to make of them. In my opinion, they should be confused and scared – or put on their guard – as Elizabethans would be by an encounter with witches, or rather people they SUSPECT might be witches! But as I definitely don’t want old hags with beards, and witches are as pointless on a 21st century stage as creatures from Greek mythology, there has to be a manner how the effect of confusion and repulsion could be achieved. Obviously – and, of course, regrettably – queerness still is a good vehicle to at least indicate this. Having had to protest against the ban of gender-appropriate language for the administration, universities and schools in Bavaria has made me unpleasantly aware that there is still so much irrational fear attached to these issues.

 

But there is also a semantic aspect which I think is important. Banquo and Macbeth should be very uncertain about what to make of the sisters, NOT obviously afraid or repulsed, as they should be meeting witches, but rather curious and intrigued. I think Shakespeare makes a very strong point about the INDISTINCTNESS of the sisters, way beyond them possibly being witches. Had Macbeth – or Banquo! – been CERTAIN about their association with evil, they would instantly have distanced themselves from them. Macbeth is clearly shown as somebody with strong and clear moral principles – maybe strongest by his remorse after the murder of Duncan which - interestingly! - doesn’t ever seem to end up on the stage. But I think the “vapour” around the weird sister comes very handy in what he REALLY wants: a reason to throw these principles overboard. And Banquo is very suspicious, and seems strongly principled as well, but is prepared to take the weird sisters on board as his “oracles”. This is how “instruments of darkness” work: by stealth and “equivocation” = playing on the expectations and secret aspirations of people by “double-dealing”. That Banquo is also vulnerable makes it clear that Macbeth is essentially the same: not special or “flawed” from the start, but a human being with good principles and essential weaknesses which make them susceptible to evil. – So – “in conclusion” - to translate the element of irrational fear but also fascination and curiosity, I decided that my sisters should be non-binary people or transsexuals.

 

My preference would be non-binary people, but this would be more difficult to achieve – as to casting non-binary actors; actors playing transsexuals wouldn’t necessarily have to BE transsexuals! – and not as effective on the stage, I believe. So, in my ideal “Macbeth”, I’d have two trans-women and one trans-man as weird sisters though this might not be as satisfactory aesthetically as a more uniform set-up. It would certainly have to be tested …

 

There are such a number of perks to the sisters being spooks that I am getting more and more excited about it. But there is also one major drawback. In general, actually “using” the sisters as instruments of darkness makes us focus on the darkness as a major issue, and we cannot just avoid the issue, or vaguely put it on the war as the source of all evil. But still everybody can decide for themselves what they think about it. If the sisters are spies, there are political implications we might not want. My first idea was that they would be Norse spies, but couldn’t see what was to be gained from that. The other possibility, that they might be English spies, appears a lot more promising … At the moment I am excited by the idea, but it isn’t completely thought through and might not work out.

 

I plan to write a historical post about “Macbeth” soon, not only but also in order to make up my mind about this issue. Anyway, “we” only THINK we can avoid the question about evil by ignoring or marginalizing it, or vaguely pinning it on war, there is always a statement involved. For example, if the weird sisters are refugees or bag-people, the evil gets located in society, or capitalism, and – maybe to my own surprise?! – I don’t want that. At least I do not think that it provides a useful context for understanding the play.

 

So, enough of the preliminaries, now to the fun part:

 

Act 1,1

 

Thunder, lightning, rain … A storm brewing. A bit of vegetation in the foreground to indicate the “blasted heath”. (Absolutely classic “Macbeth” – up to THIS point!) The exterior of a ruined building in the background is illuminated by lightning. There is a partly functional neon writing above the door, reading: “The Heath”. Discarded weapons and bits of military gear, body parts and a couple of dead bodies are scattered about the stage.

 

Enter the weird sisters in combat uniforms, carrying guns and backpacks which they throw down centre-stage, close to the ramp. The first sister – who is a trans-man with short hair, shorter than the others and quite muscular - is checking on the building, gun at the ready. The second sister (a trans-woman) is retrieving something from her rucksack (torch, cigarettes, phone), the third (another trans-woman) is checking her watch. (I continue to refer to them all as “she”, as I continue to refer to them as “sisters” and can’t ask them which pronouns they’d prefer.) They are in a hurry.

 

Third sister (matter-of-factly, checking her watch and looking at the others): “When shall we three meet again?”

 

First sister (coming forward and looking disgustedly up at the sky): “In thunder, lightning, or in rain!” (= is it always raining in this f…ing country?)

 

Second sister (lighting a cigarette and pointing it at the surrounding mess, dismissively): “When the hurly-burly’s done. When the battle’s lost and won.” (= when all the unnecessary commotion is over and done with)

 

Third sister (looking around, judging the situation): “That will be ere the set of sun.” (= not long now!)

 

First sister (practically): “Where the place? (= Where do you propose?)

 

Third sister (pointing her cigarette at the derelict building): “At “The Heath”?”

 

Second sister (grinning, slyly): “There to meet with Macbeth!”

 

There is a commotion in the background. They sisters suddenly get together in a half-circle, arms around each other’s shoulders, like footballers before a match, shouting: “The weird sisters, hand in hand, posters to the sea and land!”

 

They separate while other soldiers run or stumble across the stage. One goes down on hands and knees in front of them, close to the ramp, panting and heavily bleeding. One of the fallen soldiers unfreezes and robs inconspicuously towards the back of the stage. The second sister throws her pack and gun over her shoulder and joins other soldiers running past, leaving the stage with them. The first crouches and freezes until the commotion has passed her, then moves towards the soldier creeping across the floor. She retrieves a serrated combat blade from her boot and kills him, then checks his backpack and pockets. She stealthily disappears while Duncan and entourage are marching onto the stage. The third sister shrugs and retreats to the entrance of the derelict building where she switches on the light above the entrance. She is getting out of her uniform, then retrieves a short, glittery dress, fishnet stockings and high heels from her backpack and leisurely dresses and puts on make-up using a small hand-mirror. Together with extras in combat trousers and muscle shirts she transforms the back of the ruined building into a makeshift bar, adding a counter, beer-pull and glasses, and putting bottles into recesses and window-sills in the wall. A camping table and folding chairs are added, and a couple of beer crates, which have just been emptied, are added as additional seats. Two extras are sitting down at the table, getting served drinks and starting to play cards. The others leave, taking most of the “rubble” and body parts with them. At some point, the first sister enters, grabs a bottle of beer off the counter and drops down on a beer crate in the foreground of the bar, alternately drinking and checking/writing messages on her phone. The third sister has retired behind the bar, wiping glasses with a bored look on her face. This takes until the end of scene two.

 

(The most important element, in my opinion, in making a stage-production aesthetically convincing, is a sense of the time that is passing, and a sense of timing. One of the reasons I liked the Stratford Macbeth was the “countdown” which gave a sense of urgency and temporal unity to the production that structured everything time-wise kind of “on its own”. I think my own “time-scheme” would be a little more complicated. There should be a sense of bustle and a lot going on on the stage in very fast succession, as in the first scene, most of the time – many extras, which might be a problem! - but also intervals of slowing-down and extreme quiet in between when there are “intimate” scenes, as Lady Macbeth reading the letter, or the conversations between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, or Macbeth and Banquo and so on. These parts might also be set apart by strong lighting suddenly illuminating the scene, or parts of the scene where the main action is playing, whereas the “commotion” is going on in the background, though maybe slowed-down and muted. There should be a strong sense of “dark dealings” and things we don’t know going on in the background CONTINUALLY, and the audience just getting glimpses of them, predominantly through the actions of the weird sisters.)

 

Act 1,2

 

The “bloody man” in the foreground is questioned by Malcolm and Duncan and is helped away by red cross staff as Ross enters, delivers his tale and receives his commission from Duncan. Duncan and followers are leaving the stage on the left/opposite side of the makeshift bar. Lennox and Ross consult briefly and leave in the opposite direction. The spotlight moves to the bar.

 

Act 1,3

 

Enters the second sister, now in some kind of suit with high heels and offensive lipstick, hands and arms covered in blood up to her elbows.

 

The third sister (throwing her a towel and kind of annoyed): “Where hast thou been, sister?" (We were waiting for you!!!)

 

The second sister (obviously lying): “Killing swine.” (As if you don’t know!)

 

The first sister has turned the attention off her phone and is listening avidly, her elbows propped on her knees. The second sister notices her and turns towards her:

 

Second sister: “Sister where thou?”

 

First sister (bouncing to her feet, grinning broadly): “A sailor’s wife had chestnuts in her lap, and munched and munched. ‘Give me!’ quoth I. ‘Aroint thee, dyke!’ the rump-fed ronyon cries. Her husband’s to Aleppo gone, master of the Tiger.” (Drumming on the counter, kind of rapping, making the glasses rattle.) “And in a sieve I’ll thither sail, and like a rat without a tail, I’ll do, I’ll do, and I’ll do.”

 

All three laughing and meeting in front of the counter, with hugs and blown kisses.

 

Third sister (with an obscene gesture): “ I’ll give thee a wind.”

 

First sister (giggling): “Thou art kind.”

 

Second sister (mimicking the third): “And I another.”

 

First sister (snorting uncontrollably, indicating the same gesture but instead doubling over with giggling): I myself have all the other. (She retrieves a beer bottle from the counter and drinks, then leans back on the counter and, with sudden vengefullness: ) ” I’ll drain him dry as hay. Sleep shall neither night nor day hang upon his pent-house lid. He shall live a man forbid. Weary sev’nights nine times nine …”

 

The second sister has retrieved a small bloody item wrapped in a handkerchief from the pocket of her suit, partly removes the wrapping and shoves it into the first sister’s face. (Triumphantly): “Look what I have!” (Doesn’t THIS come in handy?)

 

Third sister (moving towards her, avidly trying to grab the item): “Show me, show me!”

 

Second sister (moving the item up and out of reach): “Here I have a pilot’s thumb, …”

 

Macbeth and Banquo have arrived at the doorlike opening to one side of the counter. One of them is knocking the back of the wall forcefully as if asking for permission to enter.

 

Second sister: “… wrecked as homeward he did come.”

 

First sister (at the same time, hissing, warningly): “Macbeth does come!”

 

She drops back onto her beer crate, retrieving her phone and tapping with both thumbs, seemingly uncaring about the goings on in the background. The second sister removes behind the counter, trying to conceal “the evidence”. The third sister has moved in front of her and takes up polishing glasses and looking bored. Neither is taking any notice of the two men entering, as if they were customers in a crowded bar. One of the card-players throws his hand on the table, laughing. The others are reluctantly moving their money across the table towards him.

 

Spot on Macbeth and Banquo in the foreground, looking round and kind of adjusting their eye while the rest of the stage goes almost dark. The lighting in the background is brightening slowly, revealing the three sisters. The first sister is now leaning with her back against the counter, arms crossed. The second is standing to one side of the counter, one hand on top, legs crossed. The third sister behind her counter has stopped polishing, towel and glass still in her hands. All three are staring.

 

Banquo (kind of whispering to Macbeth and visibly disconcerted): “What are these – so wild in their attire they look not like the inhabitants of the earth and yet are on it?” (When the staring silence becomes intolerable, he moves forward with an effort to address the sisters): “ Live you, or are you ought that man may question?” (The sisters raise their fingers to their lips in a uniform gesture of mockery but otherwise stay immovable apart from a slight grin. Banquo continues, slightly angered: ) “You seem to understand me – by each at once laying her finger upon her skinny lips. (Moving forward, curiosity suddenly getting the upper hand: ) ” You should be women, and yet your looks forbid me to interpret that you are so!”

 

Macbeth, who had stood back with a bemused expression joins him (authoritatively, in a no-nonsense tone: ) “Speak, if you can! What are you?”

 

The spot has now moved to the sisters. They suddenly seem to have morphed into different beings, just for the moment, looking stern and remote.

 

The third sister (in a deep voice): “All hail Macbeth. (Pause) Hail to thee, Thane of Glamis!”

 

The first sister: “All hail Macbeth! Hail to thee, Thane of Cawdor!”

 

Macbeth, who has moved forward upon being addressed (correctly), freezes. He now stands slightly to one side of the second sister who turns towards him, an eery grin on her face. (Mockingly): “All hail Macbeth! That shalt be king hereafter.”

 

Macbeth’s face “falls”.

 

(to be continued)

What’s wrong with Macbeth?, part 3: Playing Macbeth

Seeing the “DocX Macbeth” again in the cinema on the 2nd of May was interesting and, at the present moment, a bit stressful because I had just been “through” with the “Stratford Macbeth” and felt as if I had finally found my footing “in this play”. Before that, it had been a bit like cloudcuckooland … Again, in the “screen version” – this time I became extremely aware that, as soon as it is filmed, there is a screen version! – where all the random, disruptive elements of the theatre experience were removed, I could see more of what they had been doing. It was EXACTLY the opposite of the “Stratford Macbeth”: Bloody, bold and “dark” – on a scale to fill the big hall - and with the Lady Macbeth of my dreams: brazen and strong in the beginning, thrilled and optimistic about what is promised, she “cracks” when she sees her husband go mad and everything they have gained fall apart. It was Indira Varma who carried this off, and it worked because of HER, not Ralph Fiennes who actually was the worst actor on this stage! And, set the many weaknesses aside – and though it was not quite as consistent as the “Stratford Macbeth” – it WORKED almost as well! I especially liked the weird sisters this time because I could see how they were supposed to come from the “darkness” of the war and bring something dangerous with them into people’s lives – so, were “instrumental” in the spreading of the darkness. And – even though it was a lot more brutal than the “Stratford Macbeth”, which I approved of! – thank goodness, there was no severed head!

 

So, maybe it just doesn’t matter that much if Macbeth goes mad or not, or if we get to know who he is …??? Not so for Lady Macbeth, by the way, whom I have now seen to be this “catalyst” in both productions! We HAVE to make up our mind about her. (Though, as I said, there is no definite version. There may be no-goes, but, if the context is right, the opposite might work as well …) Of course, it matters that Macbeth is played by a good actor – which Christopher Eccleston was and Ralf Fiennes was not, in this case. (There is nothing more boring and frustrating, if you know the text word for word, to watch somebody saying it word for word on the stage in the way you are hearing it in your head, which means: NOT PLAYING at all! In my perception, it slowed the production down no end. It seemed much too long, but, looking on my watch in the tube, I noticed that it had probably been shorter than the “Stratford Macbeth” – which must have been 2 ½ hours at most, and pointedly concise …) But it might not be that important WHO this guy actually is – so that I am now entirely relaxed looking forward to my next Macbeth – David Tennant on the 28th of October this year. (Yeah, we got tickets!!!)

 

In retrospect, I am really glad, though, that I saw at least ONE Macbeth who was kind of like the one in my head, just so as to know that I haven’t been entirely wrong. Put Indira Varma and Chris Eccleston together, I have now basically seen all these great Macbeth and Lady Macbeth moments, apart from the one that was covered by Rory Kinnear. I finally added Indira Varma to the “household gods” on my wardrobe door because as Lady Macbeth she convinced me that she is not just a “goddess” but probably not entirely human because she did what nobody has done in my experience: play ALL these moments in such a substantial role – and with such ease that I was permanently going like: Yes, yes, yes – that’s it! It’s not THAT difficult, is it? I even think I have only seen somebody do this ONCE in Shakespeare – when Keeley Hawes played King Edward’s wife in “Richard III” (with Ralph Fiennes): a character being played entirely “naturally” - as if there WAS no “Shakespeare”, no tradition about playing this characters, or other actresses having played them before, or this cumbersome text to be dealt with first … I remember that, at one point, I thought that, if Shakespeare could have seen this – and could somehow have overcome the shock of seeing it played by a WOMAN, with unbound hair and visible cleavage! – he would first have seen how well he had done. (What a pity I won’t have HER on DVD to watch again when I cannot remember the satisfaction!)

 

With Christopher Eccleston – who has always resided among the “household gods” – it’s different. He didn’t play all the moments – though most of them. In my recollection, he only fell short of the remorse and devastation after Duncan’s murder. (And they were on a “time schedule” because of the two hours, there didn’t seem to be “a time” then for remorse.) I didn’t like it that much that he appeared entirely unconcerned about his wife’s death whereas Ralph Fiennes’ Macbeth appeared gutted, but there ARE these two opposite possibilities, and Chris Eccleston’s seemed more consistent. Probably because we are long past taking Macbeth seriously at this point, IF he goes mad. I just accidentally re-read this interview Richard Armitage gave about playing Thorin Oakenshield where he said that we shouldn’t be looking for consistency, in this case, but the opposite. I wasn’t chuffed at the time about Thorin going mad either, but in retrospect I can see what he meant - though this was different because it was this really long film – even more than one! – with a lot more opportunities to delve into inconsistencies.

 

So, if this had been a race, Indira Varma would have won – but in a way the story of Macbeth is more crucial and precarious than that of Lady Macbeth, just not in the way I thought. In my experience, there is exactly one actor who equals Indira Varma in what they are both doing: Ciaran Hinds. He also sees and does EVERYTHING that IS there, and exactly THAT – without ever considering what MIGHT be there. Chris Eccleston – though he played Macbeth entirely “naturally” as well – is all about what might be “behind” the character, not so much what he is doing but WHY he might be doing it, in short: the mystery of total empathy. I think that’s his “secret”, and the reason why I have never seen him do anything that is not natural, or overdone, or somehow “wrong” … This kind of human complexity is not for everybody, and I am not offended if others cannot see it, but it IS there. It is also what I find most interesting, so that – even though I don’t see him anymore – he is probably still my favourite actor. And it’s not surprising that I find it’s exactly the kind of attention that should be given to Macbeth.

 

I already mentioned how he made me see Shakespeare’s “milk of human kindness” by reacting intuitively to the vulnerability of his wife. It was just one moment that made me see the bigger picture of this marriage in its entirety. And, as we have seen the opening, the closing towards other people becomes significant as a change. It was natural and subtle and entirely convincing. No big, disruptive action was needed. – So, I was entirely happy with the “Stratford Macbeth” … Ummm – not true! There was this corner of my mind where I wished somebody would come and make up their mind about Macbeth the way Indira Varma made up her mind about Lady Macbeth (- or probably didn’t even need to because she just played what was there …). To make us see the PERSON behind the tragedy. As far as I could see, Christopher Eccleston had done everything right, still his Macbeth lacked “colour” …

 

This time, though, watching the “Stratford Macbeth” on DVD, the woods definitely began to emerge behind the trees, which also meant to discover that I had been barking up the wrong tree entirely. If it had been so easy to make up one’s mind – or so relevant! – WHO this guy is – as to the special features he has, his biography, or what age he is, or other physical aspects – Ralph Fiennes’ Macbeth would have been ace because this is what he does best, in my opinion: extremely detailed character studies. Chris Eccleston was probably in a better position because of the thing HE does: this weird “empathy thing”. Nothing weird about it, of course, as actors usually have it, but there are only few with this kind of unfailing “instinct”. Focusing on the woods instead of the trees, it is not so strange anymore that so many actors “failed” Macbeth, not knowing what to do, or probably even trying to do the right thing: playing the AVERAGE GUY. Strange thing that this is the most difficult to do: not giving a character special features and still making them interesting. Because – and this is really important for the play as I see it now but only will unfold later! – Macbeth is not special. He is just EVERY MAN – with a decisive emphasis on the MAN aspect! In my opinion, Christopher Eccleston did a totally clever thing to make Macbeth “work”. He focused on the question: what would A MAN do? How would a man react? He’d always feel RESPONSIBLE and compelled to ACT – to the point of absurdity. Rather than stop he would make “the frame of things disjoint – both the worlds suffer”. I am struck by these words every time because this is exactly how “old white men” are running our world into the ground on a regular basis. And I got this feeling that all he really wanted, from a certain point, was to be able to STOP! I just love the way they managed “time” and timing in this production, that they had focused on these moments when everything stops. I hope I’ll get round to this later … Just one example: When I first saw it, I was so entirely focused on Christopher Eccleston that I mistook the ending he “chose” for Macbeth – not to have him defeated and killed but kind of committing suicide the moment he decides it is “enough” – for arrogance. This time I could see that Christopher Eccleston very much had the reigns in his hands but lead the whole production entirely in the right direction. In fact, everybody was cooperative on this stage because everybody knew exactly what this was about. Even the lead knew that it was NOT (just) HIS TRAGEDY! Macbeth is in fact the one most responsible – the one who spreads the virus - but he is still just a small cog in a big machine, traditionally called THE WHEEL OF FORTUNE which Ross describes: “Things at the worst will cease, or else climb upwards to what they were before.” It stops, okay, at one point, to climb up again - but only AFTER it has grinded us into the ground … At the moment, being much less optimistic than usual – and uncomfortably aware of its existence! - I would prefer to call it the “wheel of disaster”.

 

“What’t wrong with Macbeth?” part 2: The “Stratford Macbeth”

From where I am standing now, my experience with the “Stratford Macbeth” - as I now refer to the production - was incomplete, partly because I didn’t SEE everything – there is a limit to what you can see of the acting if you are looking down on the top of the actors’ heads most of the time - but predominantly because of my own limited perspective on the play and the resulting expectations – as if I couldn’t see the woods because of all the trees … The production wasn’t spectacular, in an obvious way, and I think, even if not consciously, every time I expect anew to be dazzled by a “sparkling”, brand-new “Macbeth”. Compared to my inner “Macbeth”, this one felt reduced: all these great scenarios and landscapes crammed into some kind of dusty, limited space: a bedroom where the three little sisters are playing with their dolls – they WERE triplets, by the way! A hospital room where the already decrepit Duncan rises awkwardly from his bed to greet the conquering heroes, and so on … A “compressed”, dreary reality, not just where space is concerned but also “time-wise”: at the murder of Duncan a digital stop watch is set to be counting downwards for two hours, and the porter – here more like a sinister caretaker – is always there in the background, making the count of the dead with chalk on a brick wall … In my imagination the world of “Macbeth” had always been “bigger” – more glamorous, more scary …? But to make the woods appear behind all the trees, REDUCTION turned out to be a good thing.

 

The other thing I had so wrong – and why it proved so useful to go through all these experiences again as I did – was that I always focused – and put the whole tragedy – on the main protagonist. I had liked the Stratford “Macbeth” mainly because I finally saw a Macbeth who was like a human being I could understand, and I liked it even better in the aftermath, when I read an interview with Chris Eccleston which contained rather a few things I could connect with – though I only remember his scepticism about the issue of manliness and the male image which was really revealing. (The biographical background and the striking sensitivity of the interviewer conveyed an impression of him as a totally “no bullshit” person who knows what he wants and what he can do, and would call a spade a spade no matter what others might call it. Which rather corresponds with what I have seen of his acting that always struck me as exceptionally honest – in the sense that he just wouldn’t do anything he isn’t completely convinced about.) And I liked it still more, watching the DVD again, finally able to put the pieces together and appreciate how precise his acting was, and also what everybody had done on that stage. Obviously, Chris Eccleston pulled his weight, but it also became clear that I had to shift my focus. “The Tragedie of Macbeth” is in fact a misleading title, though not, as I thought, because of the “tragedy” bit. This was actually the moment where I saw the woods appear behind the trees and understood that an important part of what’s wrong with Macbeth were just my own expectation. In a very literal sense that had gradually be dawning on me, even Macbeth is ONLY JUST HUMAN

 

. But before I come to the bigger picture, I’ll come to the details of the production, that is, the “positives”:

 

HUMOUR

 

Compared to other “dark” plays like “Othello”, “Richard III” (which I have down as Shakespeare’s best comedy!), even “Hamlet”, “Macbeth” seems rather devoid of humour. At least I can’t see it, apart from a very dark irony that is not really a laughing matter. This kind was well represented by the porter, or rather “caretaker”, taking care of death in the manner his colleagues in the sixties took care of the facilities in their schools or apartment blocks: not over-enthusiastically. A subtle hint not to take all the fuss too seriously. “Things at the worst will change …” It will probably all be reset in two hours. The humour in “Macbeth” is kind of an underhand affair, but it is there. In retrospect – and apart from the “Shakespeare Retold” that wasn’t really Shakespeare – this production was actually the funniest I have seen, but there might be room for improvement …?

 

I forgot to mention the Globe Theatre’s “Macbeth” in my general survey, which I also have on DVD (– makes me wonder how many more I may have seen and dismissed!?) It wasn’t one of the worst, though not very entertaining or surprising either, with Macbeth meeting the usual clichés; but one scene stood out which usually belongs to the boring bits: the meeting between Macduff and Malcolm at the English court which they played as a funny scene – as if Macduff didn’t take Malcolm quite seriously. Strictly speaking, that doesn’t really work, but it made me aware of the absurdity of the situation Macbeth has initiated. It was a bit like “The Death of Stalin” which is in fact a funny film that gives you the creeps: Sometimes humour is much better at making us see how WRONG things are than highlighting the atrocities we got used to a long time ago. (This totally changes, of course, as soon as they start happening TO US!) I notice that I am still undecided about humour in “Macbeth”; the play cannot be the exception to my rule that “Shakespeare” without humour is not “Shakespeare”. The two kinds I detected so far certainly worked.

 

MADNESS

 

The single feature I am most grateful for – apart from Christopher Eccleston playing Macbeth! – was the ABSENCE OF MADNESS. At least where Macbeth is concerned. His Macbeth didn’t go mad, and as this was the best Macbeth I have seen on a stage, I know now that I have been right all this time. It totally works!

 

As I have to raise the issue of madness at some point and it never seems to fit in, I’ll do it now. I have always been totally convinced that it is not just unnecessary for Macbeth to go mad but a distortion of the story. Lady Macbeth’s madness, in my opinion, is a completely different affair, and I’ll come to that. There are two points, though, that have to be cleared up about Macbeth and madness. The first one is that he “sees things” that other people cannot see. On an Elizabethan stage, Macbeth panicking because he sees Banquo’s spirit in the banquet scene whereas nobody else can see him would have been greeted as first rate entertainment. Nobody would have wondered about his state of mind because the kind of psychological consistency “we” are trying to create on a stage didn’t apply. WE would certainly want to make up our mind about WHAT KIND OF GUY this Macbeth is – or at least the actor would want to do that. And THIS guy already HAS seen or heard things nobody else could see or hear.

 

There probably is a significant contradiction between my awareness that psychology was of little consequence on an Elizabethan stage and my conviction that Shakespeare’s real calling was the workings of the human mind and soul. I have actually no clue how to overcome this contradiction – thrilling because this tells me I must be wrong about SOMETHING – yeah!!! - but my experience is that in most cases I examined a convincing psychological explanation could be found, either by me or some actor who played it. They are, of course, almost always reductive. Unless proved otherwise, the opposite might work just as well. Still, I am always looking for consistencies. And I found one, I think, about Macbeth “seeing things”.

 

Of course, all of this stuff about Banquo appearing on the stage in person and the dagger being there for everybody to see or not initially is about what works on the stage, not about psychology. Usually, the dagger is not really there for the audience to see, and that seems entirely consistent. In the banquet scene sometimes different solutions are tried out. Claudia reported one where they repeated the scene the first time without Banquo, the second time with him (or the other way round?). Not having seen it, I cannot imagine what this would achieve. In the “Stratford Macbeth” they only brought in Banquo at the second “call” and played the beginning of the scene without him. Not a bad idea because it brings in a sense of escalation. I am always slightly pissed off that the ghost never enters on Macbeth’s call, but this is actually intended. I checked the first folio, and there the ghost turns up both times BEFORE Macbeth mentions Banquo. I’d like to find an explanation for this!

 

(Oh – and I might have done so! That’s my “easter egg”, see below …)

 

Looking at it through psychological glasses, the bodily appearance brings the AGGRAVATION of a situation that has been there already before Macbeth has any reason to become “mad” = before the killing of Duncan. It could be seen as obsession. Macbeth becomes obsessed with the idea of the murder and conjures the dagger and the atmosphere of darkness and horror to go with it. It is something that Lady Macbeth does as well – strategically! – when she conjures the “spirits” that must be somewhere out there to “tend on mortal thoughts” and help her follow through with her evil plan; but there is a difference. Only a slight difference in the beginning, but Macbeth doesn’t have to conjure the dagger, he SEES the dagger, and THEN the mental image initiates the other fantasies. After the murder, Macbeth is visibly shocked, whereas his wife is not affected RIGHT THEN in the same way; her attempt at convincing herself that “the sleeping and the dead are but as pictures” and it is “the eye of childhood that fears a painted devil” works for the time being. She cannot deal with the blood, as we will see, whereas Macbeth is dealing with it on the spot – which actually gives him a better chance of overcoming the trauma! In my opinion, he doesn’t “crack” later – that is: become dysfunctional - whereas his wife does. He also hears voices in the aftermath of the murder - whereas Lady Macbeth only hears what is really there - and gets so scared that we must assume they are real for him. Again, this gives him an opportunity to mentally deal with what has happened.

 

So, when Banquo actually appears on the stage, this is an aggravation of something that has occurred before, especially as it now becomes public, but also because it has become impossible for him to attribute it to his imagination as he did with the dagger; and the audience can appreciate the climax when Banquo turns up for real – if only because of the shock effect. - It struck me recently, thinking about this scene, that the excuse Lady Macbeth makes for his behaviour – that he has been like this “from his youth” – might not have been entirely made up. She is the one who knows that he has seen things – the only one he could have told about the “air-drawn dagger”. It is something that comes to her at this moment to use – something she has never really understood about her husband: that he has this vivid imagination which makes him get awe-struck and over-excited quite easily. In fact, this already plays a role in the beginning, considering how different he and Banquo react to the weird sisters, respectively in the way this misunderstanding is created about how to deal with the prophecies: Macbeth still “toys” with the possibility of killing Duncan – as ONE option that, in my opinion, he never really intended to see through! – whereas for his wife it’s an unequivocal call to action.

 

This “disposition” might not really have caused a problem BEFORE HE MET THE WEIRD SISTERS. Thinking this through, it struck me how fundamentally Shakespeare deals with the reality of EVIL in “Macbeth”. It would definitely go beyond any scope to reflect to what extent “we” have come to rationalize evil, almost to the point of total denial, and how impressed I was therefore – and still am! – by Tolkien having reinstated it as a REALITY that CAN be defeated … In “Macbeth”, the evil is equally real – that is: existent “outside” of evil people and their “timely” dealings - but we tend to rationalize it away by marginalizing its “instruments” or putting a piece of actual reality in its place we think we understand - like war in the National Theatre’s “Macbeth” with Rory Kinnear. But even if we were able to understand it, there would be little chance to defeat it because the devil cannot be targeted directly, and his ways are entirely too clever for us. I think that, in coming in contact with the weird sisters, the inherent danger in Macbeth’s condition becomes aggravated because his human weaknesses are the places where evil can take root. In more than one respect, the aggravation of his “infirmity” endangers his own state of mind and, like a virus, makes evil spread to other people. The banquet scene is such an important step in Macbeth’s downfall because it damages his standing as king and therefore the loyalty of his followers, and, “in conclusion”, the institution of kingship itself. A state of affairs that, in Shakespeare’s world, can only beget tyranny.

 

Having come so far, I can suddenly see that the second aspect of madness in “Macbeth” – the more important one – is in fact closely linked to the first. I always had this feeling that this change from a basically decent person in the beginning into a bloody tyrant – to be crammed into two hours of stage time! – is impossible to explain – or represent – convincingly. There the madness helps, but the reason I fundamentally object is that it achieves nothing apart from “explaining” everything “away”. It sweeps aside psychology together with any social and political implications which, I think, Shakespeare laid down in depth. The problem is, as so often in “Shakespeare”, that it is actually MORE complicated than I – or most directors dealing with the play – are prepared to consider. There are psychological reasons – like stress and fear – AND social reasons – like distrust and isolation – AND political reasons, as I just explained, that alter Macbeth, AND, on top of all that, EVIL as this kind of catalyst that nobody can predict or understand … The human being Macbeth struggles with all of them, and the struggle might sometimes make him appear insane because he has put himself into such a perverse position. But, in my opinion, this struggle shouldn’t be shown as a mental condition.

 

So, I am surprised one more time of how much can be achieved by taking psychological issues in “Shakespeare” seriously! – Not so good: In fact, I must appear mad to anybody but myself given the amount of time I have now spent on this already epic treatise that nobody will ever read, neglecting my health, my household duties, my social relationships and probably my work – and still It feels as if I have only scratched the surface. It is obvious that this kind of complexity can never be adequately represented on a stage. My inner “Macbeth” may contain all this and try to find solutions, but in an actual stage situation lines have to be cut and decisions have to be made. In fact, the “Stratford Macbeth” showed me the meaning of “adding by subtracting”.

 

THE LADY

 

As I already mentioned, in the case of Lady Macbeth madness is entirely acceptable, probably even necessary. I still think there will be a post about the lady, and this one is already too long, so I am just stating it at this point. Nonetheless, I don’t like it. I didn’t like Niamh Cusack running about the stage like a crazy hen, and I didn’t like her acting which seemed to me overdone and without depth. When I watched it again recently, I didn’t like it much better, but it suddenly made sense. I saw that I had dismissed her Lady Macbeth more on a point of principle than bad acting because I hate Lady Macbeth being shown as weak and damaged FROM THE START. She has to be the one who has this sway over Macbeth to turn him around, she cannot be this pitiful creature … This time, the broadening of my perspective in the meantime allowed me to see what they were doing. I still don’t think that it is what Shakespeare has written, but what he has written might not be what serves his purpose best under any circumstances. In the context of THIS production, the relationship between Macbeth and his wife had to be clear and concise, and obvious, as it was clearly just a little piece in a complicated puzzle, but has to contain this important turning point. I am always trying to see a relationship between husband and wife on the stage and usually fail, and I could see nothing on the part of Lady Macbeth this time – but the way Macbeth REACTED to her made me glimpse, just in one moment, the COMPLETE relationship and history of this couple! I always had this feeling that Macbeth – though he adores her – is a little bit afraid of his wife. In this case, he is more than a little bit afraid FOR his wife because he knows that she is vulnerable. And as soon as I saw it, the behaviour Lady Macbeth displays makes complete sense. Macbeth doesn’t dare to go against his wife because he fears the consequences for their relationship – which is kind of what Lady Macbeth says, just from a “stronger” position, when she threatens: “From this time such I account thy love”. But frailty can be as powerful a weapon in a relationship, even if it is not wielded consciously, and the more I think about it, the more I can see how it worked because it made me see a lot I always WANTED to see in a production of “Macbeth” but never did. First of all, there IS a relationship of a couple with a long history – predominantly painful, but they are visibly and strongly linked through this pain. And it provides an opportunity to show Macbeth as somebody who CARES – who is capable of empathy = the “milk of human kindness” Lady Macbeth is talking about. At the end, all this is gone. Macbeth cares about nobody but himself, and this is enough to show the enormous change he has undergone as a human being. The desired effect is achieved “quietly”, without raving and shouting, with marvellous efficiency. And even though I still don’t like it, it is much easier for Lady Macbeth to become mad when she is “unstable” from the beginning. I regret it because a lot of great “Lady Macbeth stuff” just goes down the drain, as usual, but in the context of this production, where time and timing literally are “of the essence”, it is a comparatively small sacrifice. As I already wrote, there are greater things at stake …